Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

Ok so I apologize if this has been posted before but I can't find anything on it. But The Real USC won the 1933 Southern Conference Championship, to be exact they were co-champs with Duke that season. The Southern Conference nor The University acknowledge this conference championship does anyone know why? I just find it interesting because all other schools acknowledge all old championships regardless of what year they were won.

We also won the ACC in 1965 but this was later disallowed by the ACC for violating their rules. But Clemson gets to keep a National title after violating NCAA rules?

It just seems that there has possibly been a lot of wrongdoings in the past by Conferences we were members of and maybe this is the reason we stayed independent for so long. I would also like to note for those that aren't aware being independent was once a more popular route for schools than it is today.

Can any of you older Gamecocks do some digging or let me know about these things thank you ahead of time.

__________________USC is in South Carolina.Carolina is in South Carolina.THE University of South Carolina IS THE University of SOUTH CAROLINA!

I've wondered this alot myself, I have no idea. The ACC had rules that were strange, I swear, I think some of it was to keep the division between the haves and have-nots. We've been so screwed before, it feels like we're born to lose, but defying fate these days.

A few things come to my mind reading those 2 links....things that I'm sure have crossed my mind about this whole issue in the past, and things I'm sure have crossed the minds of many, many other Gamecock fans:

First off, an argument has been in the past that the NCAA technically have not awarded or named any college FB programs with titles of national championships. That has always been done by the media and consensus of general population (national polls). Therefore, when a NC program is found to have violated NCAA rules during it's NC run, the NCAA can penalize the program with sanctions: reducing scholarships, having games involving ineligible players voided from record, banning post-season bowl eligibility. But they typically have left it up to others if the national title should be stripped.

Of course the NCAA went beyond that regarding SoCal in 2004, but I believe one of the games deemed voided was SoCal's bowl win that earned them the national title, and then the AP or someone decided that since the NCAA voided the game they played that won them the NC, then the NC had to be voided as well. I can't remember the details there too clearly...

One thing that strikes me immediately though: conferences can and do punish and void conference titles and achievements if it's determined that programs violate the rules. In 1965, it appears the ACC investigated and punished USC by voiding conference wins and revoking the co-championship from USC. The infractions I've read about thus far involved 3 FB players - one of which was on the freshman squad, and couldn't have played in any varsity games that season. The implication was $75-$100 in payments for meals and school books.

Then we read about the penalties that Clemson was found to be guilty of in the late 70s-early 80s. The listing of which was quite extensive and far more egregious than anything I've seen USC accused of in 1965.

But even though the ACC investigated Clemson like they did USC, and even though the ACC found Clemson guilty in violations that they added further penalties onto what the NCAA layed down - the ACC apparently allowed Clemson to keep their 1981 ACC conference title, while stripping USC of it's 1965 co-championship.

Another thing: I didn't like reading the article from The State, was all the vagueness and clouds regarding exactly WHAT the penalties were in 1965, and who committed them. All the coaches and players at the time seem to indicate that they all lived in a fog during that year, were never informed exactly WHY their achievement was being taken away, and didn't seem to really care or bother to find out why it was.

All kinda like, "hey we won a ACC title....oh, you're taking the title away from us and won't tell us why? OK, that's fine, cause we still won it anyways. We'll just move on".

In 1933 - I think people recognize Duke first because they won more games (9-1/4-0) than USC (6-3/3-0.) Technically we were co-champs because the teams both were undefeated in league play. They did not play balanced schedules or each other, so it makes it a little hard to clearly identify a champion. I can understand not promoting it as a banner waving item - since it raises questions and dispute.

As far as the penalties for losing the 1965 ACC championship are concerned - the NCAA and ACC have shown that they are inconsistent on penalties and how they strip teams of games. I think the only other team I can think of that the ACC stripped is GT in 2009.

To answer, the 1933 question, Duke is recognized as the conference champion that year by virtue of a 4-0 conference record and higher ranking. As for the 1965 championship team, I think it had to do with ineligible players, but not 100% sure.

I've wondered this alot myself, I have no idea. The ACC had rules that were strange, I swear, I think some of it was to keep the division between the haves and have-nots. We've been so screwed before, it feels like we're born to lose, but defying fate these days.

I know the feeling honestly but things have clearly changed, Lou got us more consistent but HBC has taken us to new heights!

__________________USC is in South Carolina.Carolina is in South Carolina.THE University of South Carolina IS THE University of SOUTH CAROLINA!

To answer, the 1933 question, Duke is recognized as the conference champion that year by virtue of a 4-0 conference record and higher ranking. As for the 1965 championship team, I think it had to do with ineligible players, but not 100% sure.

Yes I have found that we bought books and a few meals for 3 players and that got our conference title scrapped? Complete BS there is such double standard in College sports. We won it on the field but we paid for a few guys to eat and read a text book? I say we post the banner and F*** the asheshe. It's not like we bought cars and paid cash money to players.

__________________USC is in South Carolina.Carolina is in South Carolina.THE University of South Carolina IS THE University of SOUTH CAROLINA!

Find it interesting with all the stuff that has gone on in The ACC alone that the commissioner of the Conference vacate our wins over us buying a meal or 2 for players and a couple textbooks. Not to mention they gave the title to Clemson who we hate and beat that year.

__________________USC is in South Carolina.Carolina is in South Carolina.THE University of South Carolina IS THE University of SOUTH CAROLINA!

Find it interesting with all the stuff that has gone on in The ACC alone that the commissioner of the Conference vacate our wins over us buying a meal or 2 for players and a couple textbooks. Not to mention they gave the title to Clemson who we hate and beat that year.

I think this was another step towards the divorce between the ACC and Carolina. They changed and selectively enforced rules to benefit UNC and Duke. We did not want to stand for it, and it came to a head at the beginning of the next decade. We went through the wilderness of independence / Metro conference for a couple of decades and have struggled with self esteem issues in believing in a "Chicken "Curse."

Somehow, we got into the SEC, who treats us as an equal partner. It's up to the next generation of Gamecocks to refuse to let us backslide and to forever put those days and thought behind us. Don't forget how we were treated, just refuse to be treated in such a manner ever again.

Raise your glass with me and give a hearty cheer with the following words: